Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Real Question


Absolutely not.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 30, 2008 10:21 AM

Neither gay nor straight marriages should be "legal" anywhere, because the government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

Of course, private marriage-like contracts between any number informed, consenting adults, of any race, creed, or gender, should be legally enforcable just like any other contracts.

Posted by David Wright | May 30, 2008 10:26 AM

I love web-based polling. It makes Diebold look fair and balanced. YOU vote -- WE decide!

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | May 30, 2008 10:36 AM


Right, because what we all need most is yet another reason to have to hire lawyers.

Posted by elenchos | May 30, 2008 10:36 AM

Straight and gay marriages should be legal everywhere, but not recognized by the state. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want a civil union, go to a courthouse. No reason you can't have both, but I don't see why I should have to have the former to get the latter. I've been living with my opposite-sex partner for 6 years. I'd like to know I could make medical decisions for her if she were incapacitated, or any of the other hundreds of things a civil union would allow. I'm just not willing to buy into a religious institution to do it. So, legal, yes. Endorsed by the state, any state, no.

Posted by cmaceachen | May 30, 2008 10:39 AM


Straights can get the latter without the former. No couple in any state has to get married in a church.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 30, 2008 10:48 AM


You and your partner can already arrange a medical power of attorney without getting married. Pick up a form, fill in the blanks, have it notarized. It's actually considerably easier than getting married.

In fact, all the aspects of marriage that represent a agreements between the two of you (joint property, inheritance) can be arranged without getting married. What you can't arrange without getting married are the aspects of marriage that represent benefits confered by the state (social security) or third parties (employer medical insurance). But in my opinion, those aspects shouldn't exist -- they constitute unwarrented descrimination on the basis of relationship status, pure and simple.

Posted by David Wright | May 30, 2008 10:56 AM

@6. It's still marriage.

Posted by cmaceachen | May 30, 2008 11:00 AM

No marriage in Utah should be legal. And especially, no one in who lives in Utah should be allowed to breed.

Posted by beelzebufo | May 30, 2008 11:10 AM

#2, for a second there I thought you were going to include "species" in your list.

Nothing like a little man-on-dog action to work up Santorum.

Posted by w7ngman | May 30, 2008 11:13 AM

Utah has already shown it's not mature enough for marriage. If you allow people to get married at 14, you obviously don't take marriage very seriously.

*shakes fist disapprovingly at Utah*

Posted by Original Monique | May 30, 2008 11:20 AM

I think all marriages between human beings should be legal: provided that 1)all parties are legally adults, and all parties are mentally competent to ensure nobody is taken advantage of. With those conditions met, marry 5 guys and 3 women for all I care.

Posted by pragmatic | May 30, 2008 11:25 AM

Fuck the word "marriage". Let the religious crowd have their silly little word, and let it retain whatever sacred, holy significance they feel it possesses.

In the meantime, let the government confer the civil and legal benefits formerly exclusive to the marriage contract on any two consenting adults, gay or straight, who choose to apply for it.

Posted by Hernandez | May 30, 2008 11:34 AM


I do like the sound of "the-union-formerly-known-as-marriage." Parents could say to their pregnant children "shouldn't you be getting formerly-know-as-married?" Judges could say "I now pronouce you formerly-known-as-man-and-wife." Social conservatives could say "I don't think the state should condone homosexual relationships by according them the status formerly-known-as-marriage."

It's all very amusing, but the better solution is really for the state to stop doing anything like it at all.

Posted by David Wright | May 30, 2008 11:55 AM

Absolutely not.

Once the state sanctifies the union of a man and a woman, where would it stop? Polygamy? Miscegenation? Dogs marrying cats?

Where would it stop?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 30, 2008 12:14 PM

What if, like my sister who moved to Utah, they got married in California?

How about then? Could she have a straight marriage since Cali is allowing gay marriage?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 30, 2008 12:20 PM

People in Utah shouldn't breed? Uh... have you seen those boys?

Posted by Dan Savage | May 30, 2008 12:34 PM

Them Mormons have some good ol' American Jeans. I am with you Dan.

Posted by Clearlyhere | May 30, 2008 12:41 PM

I accidentally hit yes, when I am against it, and now I am afraid it will remain legal. *frown*

Posted by Sara | May 30, 2008 1:43 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.